Chelsea Nat. Bank v. Smith

• Decision Date: 07 March 1908
• Citation: 74 N.J.E. 275,69 A. 533
• Parties: CHELSEA NAT. BANK v. SMITH.
• Court: New Jersey Court of Chancery

69 A. 533

74 N.J.E. 275

CHELSEA NAT. BANK

v. SMITH.

Court of Chancery of New Jersey.

March 7, 1908.

Bill by the Chelsea National Bank against Robert S. Smith to reform a lease. Decree for reformation.

May 14, 1904, one Jere H. Nixon and defendant executed a written agreement, wherein, after a recitation that Nixon was about to acquire title to a property known as the Hotel Elwood, at Atlantic City, it was agreed that, upon receiving title, Nixon was to execute a lease for the property to defendant dated March 1, 1904, for the term of four years at the annual rent of $4,700. Then followed an enumeration of the times when the rent should be paid. The rent for the first year was divided into six payments to be made on dates specified, aggregating $4,700. The rent for each of the three succeeding years was divided into eight payments to be made on dates specified, also aggregating $4,700 annually. Other terms of the proposed lease which are here immaterial were also specified. Title to the premises was conveyed to Nixon, as anticipated, and he handed the agreement to his attorney to have a lease typewritten pursuant to the agreement, and notified defendant that the lease would be ready for execution at the attorney's office at a time named. On the day named the parties met at the attorney's office and executed the lease. The evidence discloses that the typewriter who prepared the lease made a clerical error by omitting from the lease one of the eight enumerated annual rent payments specified in the agreement for the years succeeding the first year. This made the lease read for a term of four years at the rental of $18,800 as provided in the agreement, but the specific payments enumerated in the lease for the years succeeding the first year were but $4,000 annually, instead of $4,700 annually, as provided in the agreement; the omitted payment being that of August 8th for $700 each year. The lease so drawn was handed to the parties by the attorney, and was then and there executed by them without discussion or comment touching the variance between the agreement and the lease. Nixon signed the lease without observing the error, and believing that the rent installments had been accurately copied from the agreement into the lease. Defendant testifies that he observed that the payments enumerated in the lease for the years succeeding the first year were $700 less annually than the agreement called for; but states that he made no comment touching the fact. The reason given by him for his conduct is that he had, after signing the agreement, determined to violate it, and to refuse to sign a lease because of facts, which he had...